This site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

Appendix E: Assessment of interventions

Appendix E: Assessment of interventions

E.1 Assessment criteria

Each intervention has been categorised against the following
criteria:

Evidence of effectiveness

Criteria: Is there quantified (evaluation-based) evidence
to suggest that the proposed intervention will have a positive
impact on reducing road fatalities and serious injuries amongst
17-25 year olds in Scotland?

Scoring: Interventions have only been scored if
there is robust evidence which demonstrates their impact on
casualty numbers. Where evaluation evidence or clear research
evidence is not available, a ‘not assessed’ descriptor
has been used. This does not mean that the intervention is not
worthy of further consideration, but does highlight a need for
further research and evaluation.

Notes: Evaluation evidence regarding the
effectiveness of pre-driver interventions has been limited to date,
making it difficult to identify which type of road safety education
interventions have been more or less effective (Lauccbury et al.,
2007). McKenna (2010b) reports that many road safety education
interventions do not possess the key ingredients of being based on
theory or formal knowledge and of being evaluated in such a way
that a causal inference can be made about a change in injuries.
Many evaluations which have been undertaken focus on whether
participants liked the interventions and if they raised
awareness.

Support/Acceptability amongst young people (and/or parents,
where more applicable)

Criteria: Is the proposed intervention supported by or
acceptable to young people (and/or parents, where more
applicable)?

Scoring: ‘Strong’,
‘moderate’ or ‘weak’ rating are based on
average support across young males and young females (and/or
parents, where more applicable) based on feedback from the online
survey, as presented in survey result tables in Chapter 5. Evidence
of support from other sources is also considered where
appropriate.

Notes: It was not possible to quantify opinions on
all the proposed interventions as part of the debate consultation
process.

Deliverability and enforcement

Criteria: Are there feasibility constraints relating to
technology requirements, legal issues, timescales and other similar
factors? Is the proposed solution enforceable in practical terms
and given the level of resources likely to be available to the
police and other relevant bodies?

Scoring: A ‘strong’ rating has been
applied where there are no significant delivery or enforcement
issues; and a ‘weak’ rating has been applied where
legislative change or additional devolved powers are required.

Notes: Much of the legislation relating to the
driver training and testing regime is reserved to the UK Parliament. The current system of driver training and testing
across the UK is administered by the Driving Standards Agency, an
executive agency of the UK Department for Transport. Where there is
sufficient evidence and support, the Scottish Government can ask
the UK Government for changes to be made to legislation or ask for
additional devolved powers in order to make changes in Scotland
alone. The Scottish Government might do this in cases where there
is strong evidence to suggest that the course of action would lead
to a decrease in road deaths and serious injury and strong support
for change.

The Calman Report on Scottish Devolution (Commission on Scottish
Devolution, 2009), however, recommended that driver licensing and
the standard of driving expected from those using the integrated
road network of Great Britain should remain a responsibility of the UK Government, and that devolution of this duty to the Scottish
Government would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, the option of the
Scottish Government to lobby for change on a UK wide basis remains
open.

Affordability (public purse)

Criteria: Is the proposed solution affordable for the
public purse, in terms of initial implementation, on-going and
enforcement costs? Will the police, road safety officers, schools,
etc. have the resources to implement the proposed solution?

Scoring: Intervention categorised as
‘low’ if indicative cost is less than £5
million, ‘medium’ if between £5 – 20
million, and ‘high’ if more than £20
million.

Notes: In estimating indicative costs is has been
assumed that 85,000 young people take their test each year (120,000
including all ages) and approximately 40,000 young people pass each
year (55,000 including all ages)61. It has also been
assumed that there are approximately 225,000 pupils in years S1 to
S4 and 75,000 pupils in years S5 and S662.

Potential for adverse impacts on young people

Criteria: Will the intervention have an adverse impact on
young people, in terms of the affordability of learning to drive;
education, employment and social opportunities; and social
inclusion and equity issues?

Scoring: A ‘low’ rating has been
applied where there is low potential for adverse impacts on young
people; and a ‘high’ rating has been used to indicate
that there is high potential for adverse impacts on young
people.

Notes: Seeks to highlight issues such as, would
the intervention increase the cost of learning to drive and have a
disproportionate impact on those from poorer backgrounds or not in
full-time employment; would it be seen as unfairly targeting young
drivers; would it have a disproportionate impact on those in rural
areas, etc.

E.2 Assessment results

The results of the assessment process are presented in the
following tables. The key below sets out the scoring system for all
columns.

Intervention Type A – Education and training for
younger children and pre-drivers